Space In General

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Well if the government doesn't increase NASA's budget, it won't. They also need to stop asking Boeing to build everything. They are not the quickest at what they do. If anyone makes it to the Moon in 5 years it will be SpaceX...

That seems bias, especially with a few other groups out there as capable if not more. Also JLA =/= Boeing alone.

 

[CodeRedR51]

That seems bias, especially with a few other groups out there as capable if not more.

Yet I don't see them making any headway. SpaceX is getting **** done. Hard to ignore that.

 

[Novalee]

India on Wednesday destroyed a low-orbiting satellite in a missile test that puts the country in the space "super league", Prime Minister Narendra Modi said.


India seems to be making moves in space missle defence .

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019...-space-super-league-modi-190327071419578.html

The race for the moon is back on – and Asia has an early lead. Already this year China has landed Chang’e-4on the far side of the moon, while Israel’s Beresheet is currently in lunar orbit and scheduled to put a lander on its near side on April 11. Now India is on the cusp of making a daring attempt to land on the near side of the moon close to its south pole.

https://www.techradar.com/news/first-china-then-israel-now-india-is-landing-on-the-moon-in-2019

 

[Dotini]

Am I correct in assuming no one is willing to take my bet it won't happen?

But really, this lofty goal of returning humans to the Moon could get fun and interesting enough to justify its own thread if the administration shows sincerity and commitment by getting a giant continuing program budget increase approved by a split congress.

If it does go forward, which I hope it will, I'd like see what they propose for a lunar lander. Probably very similar to Grumman's Lunar Module?

“Urgency must be our watch word,” Pence said. “Failure to achieve our goal to return an American astronaut to the moon in the next five years is not an option.”

But the Trump administration’s $21 billion fiscal year 2020 budget request for NASA released March 11 proposes a $375 million cut in funding for the Space Launch System, and would defer the introduction of a more powerful SLS upper stage capable of launching Orion crew capsules and modules for a mini-space station in lunar orbit on a single mission.

Despite warnings by NASA and Boeing program managers that a delay in the first SLS launch to 2021 was likely, Bridenstine told Pence at Tuesday’s National Space Council meeting that he is “confident we can get to the first launch in 2020 for SLS, and actually fly a crew capsule around the moon.”

An SLS/Orion flight around the moon with astronauts on-board would follow by 2022.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yet I don't see them making any headway. SpaceX is getting **** done. Hard to ignore that.

That's interesting Blue Origin is getting stuff done, and ATK which is not Orbital has had heavy lift rockets for some time is actually expanding their rocket division here in Arizona. I guess since you don't live in the greater Phoenix Area you may have missed that. ATK orbital has done some pretty big missions this past year and this year as well. ULA has done a fair share of missions too.

I get that you are quite the Musk fan and wish to be the daily reminder about Space X but just because you wear the rose tinted glasses on said subject doesn't mean we all do. They're all getting stuff done, and the fair thing to do would be what is always done which is a PDR and CDR run up and pick who is most suitable for the task. First things first however, and that's actually allocating money to NASA to get this done.

EDIT: Just realized I put JLA instead of ULA, fixed it

 

[CodeRedR51]

That's interesting Blue Origin is getting stuff done

Where? Launching a mini rocket to "almost space" and coming back down? And for how long now? Meanwhile SpaceX makes landing actual rockets look like a walk in the park and they are speeding into the next generation of rockets faster than anyone else. Like I said, getting **** done. All those other companies are getting stuff done. If you call launching satellites with zero re-usability rockets (which is key, let's not forget that) and zero plans to launch people to space. The only other company outside SpaceX doing anything interesting is Virgin Galactic with their space plane. You want to get any kind of recognition in the future in this industry you do things big and bold and you force people to take notice. SpaceX is doing that, VG is doing that, nobody else is. Not even NASA. And get out of here with the rose tinted glasses BS.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Where? Launching a mini rocket to "almost space" and coming back down? And for how long now? Meanwhile SpaceX makes landing actual rockets look like a walk in the park and they are speeding into the next generation of rockets faster than anyone else. Like I said, getting **** done. All those other companies are getting stuff done. If you call launching satellites with zero re-usability rockets (which is key, let's not forget that) and zero plans to launch people to space. The only other company outside SpaceX doing anything interesting is Virgin Galactic with their space plane. You want to get any kind of recognition in the future in this industry you do things big and bold and you force people to take notice. SpaceX is doing that, VG is doing that, nobody else is. Not even NASA.

Blue Origin isn't launching mini rockets alone not sure where you got that idea from. Also expendable rocket market is still large and just because Space X has landed on a barge doesn't mean they're the only capable ones because they're not hence why others are getting profit and contracts. Blue Origin has contracts with NASA at KSC in general and lunar projects along with plans to expand. Lockheed was another key figure that NASA is looking at, and of course the one you want to have it all, Space X. NG will probably be in the picture too, not only that there are many smaller groups getting contracts. So the entire industry on that side of Aerospace is getting stuff done.

Other are doing big and bold things and I've had the ability to talk first hand with those people, I don't think you really understand the magnitude of some of these projects and efforts like the Parker Solar Probe. The effort behind it and the methods they used to make it launch capable were big and bold. Sorry not everyone sees a cost benefit or absolute need for reusable stages. Sorry not everyone wants to make a space plane that technically isn't escaping earths atmosphere and is only going to be used at this time to give rich people (a long sought endeavor) a chance to claim they saw space. It seems maybe you might see my posts as that of taking away from Space X when in fact I see it the other way I'm acknowledging them and their competition that you seem to undermine. But by all means don't let me stop you from being the Space X/Musk solo feed.

How are they speeding into the next gen faster than anyone else? Other than Boeing but Not Boeing example you used, who also are working toward heavy lift and LEO rockets, as well as ignoring the NG/ATK expansion and gained contracts as I said in the prior post... Do you have a visual or article that shows how Space X is thoroughly heads above the competition other than you being overly excited toward them?

And get out of here with the rose tinted glasses BS.

Yet it's not BS if it is then please by all means demonstrate how so.

 

[Danoff]

I'm willing to bet, even odds, that due to unanticipated costs and delays, the US will not put a living man on the the Moon within 5 years of today.
Don't get me wrong, I want to see it happen. I just don't think 5 years is adequate time.

I don't agree.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not ready to bet that NASA puts someone on the moon in 5 years. I'd guess that the next administration (which i don't think will be Trump) will slow it down. But I don't think 5 years is too short. They need a rocket, which they've been developing, and which I think they can finish by then. The rest of it they're quite familiar with. If anything, NASA has been getting better and better at retrorocket landing (autonomously on Mars). They've got space suits, capsules, you name it. Basically, there's nothing about this mission (other than the rocket) which is not well within the technological capability of NASA right now. And the rocket is supposedly getting there.

Seriously, the rocket is the hard part. And we're (USA) pretty good at that part at this point.

Well if the government doesn't increase NASA's budget, it won't. They also need to stop asking Boeing to build everything. They are not the quickest at what they do. If anyone makes it to the Moon in 5 years it will be SpaceX...

That seems bias, especially with a few other groups out there as capable if not more. Also JLA =/= Boeing alone.

I agree that it looks biased. Space X is cool, but it's not going to get us to the moon in 5 years.

Yet I don't see them making any headway. SpaceX is getting **** done. Hard to ignore that.

Not in this particular area they're not. The most applicable tech they have for a moon mission is retrorocket landing, and even then it's not like that wasn't done on every apollo landing.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Not in this particular area they're not.

Gotta start with the transportation first. Starship is well and truly underway.

 

[Danoff]

Gotta start with the transportation first. Starship is well and truly underway.

The hopper design is pretty odd. They're doing a "this is for mars, and the moon, and for flying around the moon" which is weird. I'd think that would be three purpose-built vehicles. I mean, not if you're doing a test flight and ultimately expect to land the same vehicle on the moon later. But if you're flying celebrities around the moon for a tour, that seems like it's a specific design that doesn't include the infrastructure to land. You don't want to bring any spare weight with you to each of those destinations, and for mars you'd need the most for a lander. I'm still not quite clear on what the hopper is for and when. I suppose it could end up being the right design at the right time and get picked. Maybe it's a test-flight with celebrities... that'd be... kinda Musk.

 

[CodeRedR51]

The hopper design is pretty odd. They're doing a "this is for mars, and the moon, and for flying around the moon" which is weird. I'd think that would be three purpose-built vehicles. I mean, not if you're doing a test flight and ultimately expect to land the same vehicle on the moon later. But if you're flying celebrities around the moon for a tour, that seems like it's a specific design that doesn't include the infrastructure to land. You don't want to bring any spare weight with you to each of those destinations, and for mars you'd need the most for a lander. I'm still not quite clear on what the hopper is for and when. I suppose it could end up being the right design at the right time and get picked. Maybe it's a test-flight with celebrities... that'd be... kinda Musk.

Starhopper will launch on the Falcon Super Heavy and then land on it's own similar to the current Falcon 9. It will enter the atmosphere like so:

And land on it's "fins" upright. It can also take off from that position.

The hopper is to test the launch and hovering abilities of the Raptor engines that will power the Starship. Similar testing to the Grasshopper which was the test bed for the Falcon 9 hovering and landing abilities.

I expect this thing to be fully operational in 3-5 years. The first orbital ship is being built as we speak.

 

[Danoff]

Starhopper will launch on the Falcon Super Heavy and then land on it's own similar to the current Falcon 9. It will enter the atmosphere like so:

And land on it's "fins" upright. It can also take off from that position.

The hopper is to test the launch and hovering abilities of the Raptor engines that will power the Starship. Similar testing to the Grasshopper which was the test bed for the Falcon 9 hovering and landing abilities.

I expect this thing to be fully operational in 3-5 years. The first orbital ship is being built as we speak.

Ok, that doesn't make it a good moon lander. And it doesn't make it desirable or feasible for it to be a crew return vehicle. I'm not saying that it couldn't be adapted to that purpose, it just has a bunch of engineering that doesn't seem aimed at the purpose. So I don't see where it fits into a manned moon mission. Maybe I'm missing something.

Let me put it this way. If you land on the moon with a heat shield for re-entry to Earth, you have to boost that heat shield back off of the moon. If you land on the moon with fuel needed to land upright on Earth, you have to boost that fuel back off of the moon. So how do you use this for a moon landing without wasting a ton of fuel?

 

[Tired Tyres]

Ok, that doesn't make it a good moon lander. And it doesn't make it desirable or feasible for it to be a crew return vehicle. I'm not saying that it couldn't be adapted to that purpose, it just has a bunch of engineering that doesn't seem aimed at the purpose. So I don't see where it fits into a manned moon mission. Maybe I'm missing something.

Let me put it this way. If you land on the moon with a heat shield for re-entry to Earth, you have to boost that heat shield back off of the moon. If you land on the moon with fuel needed to land upright on Earth, you have to boost that fuel back off of the moon. So how do you use this for a moon landing without wasting a ton of fuel?

Lack of weight in space. Very limited gravity on the moon?

 

[Danoff]

Lack of weight in space. Very limited gravity on the moon?

F=ma

 

[Outspacer]

F=ma

F = m * (a + G)

 

[Danoff]

F = m * (a + G)

What?

Yes lunar gravity makes it easier to boost something off of the surface of the moon than say, if it had the gravity of mars. But you still have a lot of deltaV to impart, so you still have to accelerate the mass of the craft. You don't want to land anything you don't have to, especially not if you need to take it back with you.

 

[Outspacer]

What?

Yes lunar gravity makes it easier to boost something off of the surface of the moon than say, if it had the gravity of mars. But you still have a lot of deltaV to impart, so you still have to accelerate the mass of the craft. You don't want to land anything you don't have to, especially not if you need to take it back with you.

Just saying that F=ma isn't a rebuttal to limited gravity making a huge difference. Since G is so small, and a doesn't need to be large either, F probably isn't too huge. Sure there's a waste if there's excess mass, but how much? I don't claim to know the answer, but this could be a win if the extra cost of lifting a separate craft off the earth as cargo was more.

 

[Danoff]

Just saying that F=ma isn't a rebuttal to limited gravity making a huge difference. Since G is so small, and a doesn't need to be large either, F probably isn't too huge. Sure there's a waste if there's excess mass, but how much? I don't claim to know the answer, but this could be a win if the extra cost of lifting a separate craft off the earth as cargo was more.

There's a huge amount of force needed to accelerate these large objects to the massive velocities needed regardless of gravity. But lunar gravity does make a difference for sure.

Here's an excerpt from a good article on the subject (LOR = Lunar Orbit Rendezvous, which was the separation of the lunar lander (the LEM) to avoid having to take the earth entry vehicle to the surface)

In retrospect, we know that LOR enjoyed several advantages over the other two options. It required less fuel, only half the payload, and less brand new technology than the other methods; it did not require the monstrous Nova rocket; and it called for only one launch from Earth whereas EOR required two. Only the small, lightweight lunar module, not the entire spacecraft, would have to land on the moon. This was perhaps LOR's major advantage. Because the lander was to be discarded after use and would not need return to Earth, NASA could tailor the design of the LEM for maneuvering flight in the lunar environment and for a soft lunar landing. In fact, the beauty of LOR was that it meant that NASA could tailor all of the modules of the Apollo spacecraft independently.

It drastically cut the mass required. It was so advantageous, that the apollo program selected it over very real concerns about lunar orbit docking. These days we have a lot more experience with all of those things. What we don't have, compared to then, is gianter huger rockets. So if anything, I'd say the reasons for choosing a LOR-style manned mission are even more favorable today than they were then.

Who knows, maybe they just want to do it differently and are happy to carry the extra mass. Somehow I doubt it. But if they just want to make it different, and demonstrate new tech, maybe they choose something more wasteful. I mean shuttle was definitely phenomenally wasteful.

 

[Exorcet]

I don't claim to know the answer, but this could be a win if the extra cost of lifting a separate craft off the earth as cargo was more.

The separate craft reduces cost if it can transport its payload without excess mass. This is why staging is so common (everywhere) in space travel. Your fuel fraction impacts your delta V pretty substantially. If you're trying to fly a huge ship, you need a lot more fuel and a lot more engine to get it off the ground in the first place. The extra fuel to do this doesn't just need to leave the Moon, it needs to leave Earth first.

 

[Danoff]

 

[Outspacer]

There's a huge amount of force needed to accelerate these large objects to the massive velocities needed regardless of gravity. But lunar gravity does make a difference for sure.

Here's an excerpt from a good article on the subject (LOR = Lunar Orbit Rendezvous, which was the separation of the lunar lander (the LEM) to avoid having to take the earth entry vehicle to the surface)



It drastically cut the mass required. It was so advantageous, that the apollo program selected it over very real concerns about lunar orbit docking. These days we have a lot more experience with all of those things. What we don't have, compared to then, is gianter huger rockets. So if anything, I'd say the reasons for choosing a LOR-style manned mission are even more favorable today than they were then.

Who knows, maybe they just want to do it differently and are happy to carry the extra mass. Somehow I doubt it. But if they just want to make it different, and demonstrate new tech, maybe they choose something more wasteful. I mean shuttle was definitely phenomenally wasteful.

Well I obviously hadn't read enough and that link was very informative about the alternatives that were under consideration back then, thanks.

The separate craft reduces cost if it can transport its payload without excess mass. This is why staging is so common (everywhere) in space travel. Your fuel fraction impacts your delta V pretty substantially. If you're trying to fly a huge ship, you need a lot more fuel and a lot more engine to get it off the ground in the first place. The extra fuel to do this doesn't just need to leave the Moon, it needs to leave Earth first.

Indeed, I just hadn't appreciated how the balance of taking extra fuel vs taking an extra craft worked out, w.r.t. leaving Earth.

OK, calm down! I get that the craft would be huge by comparison, and therefore require more fuel to launch from the moon. I just didn't realise that the extra fuel required to get it off the moon again - and just to lunar orbit velocity, effectively - would be so much more than the weight of the lander (along with any associated extra weight that stayed with the mother ship).

 

[Danoff]

OK, calm down!

Sorry, I just thought that was a really cool graphic and I'd never seen it before. I'm learning a little here too, I didn't know that the LOR concept was disfavored ever, and it was interesting to read about the objections to it - which mostly had to do with mission complexity with docking and separation.

 

[Outspacer]

Sorry, I just thought that was a really cool graphic and I'd never seen it before. I'm learning a little here too, I didn't know that the LOR concept was disfavored ever, and it was interesting to read about the objections to it - which mostly had to do with mission complexity with docking and separation.

No worries, I wasn't annoyed

That the lander's launch weight was more than 3x it's dry weight (16.4 vs 4.9 tonnes) means it took a significant amount of fuel just to land and launch itself, I guess.

Nova would certainly have been a monster (concept pic). Apparently one major objection to it was that existing factories weren't large enough to build it!

 

[CodeRedR51]

Ok, that doesn't make it a good moon lander. And it doesn't make it desirable or feasible for it to be a crew return vehicle. I'm not saying that it couldn't be adapted to that purpose, it just has a bunch of engineering that doesn't seem aimed at the purpose. So I don't see where it fits into a manned moon mission. Maybe I'm missing something.

Let me put it this way. If you land on the moon with a heat shield for re-entry to Earth, you have to boost that heat shield back off of the moon. If you land on the moon with fuel needed to land upright on Earth, you have to boost that fuel back off of the moon. So how do you use this for a moon landing without wasting a ton of fuel?

In-flight refueling. There are ports on the bottom of the Starship to do so.

 

[Danoff]

In-flight refueling. There are ports on the bottom of the Starship to do so.

Like, on the moon?

 

[wfooshee]

In-flight refueling. There are ports on the bottom of the Starship to do so.

That fuel still has to be launched from somewhere... what do you save?

And that Saturn/Nova thing just creeps me out. Saturn didn't have four stages... maybe that "fourth stage" is actually the Lunar Module engine?

 

[Danoff]

That fuel still has to be launched from somewhere... what do you save?

And that Saturn/Nova thing just creeps me out. Saturn didn't have four stages... maybe that "fourth stage" is actually the Lunar Module engine?

Lunar Module, Service Module, Command Module. I think the configuration in that nova diagram is reflecting a larger stage than they ended up with for the lunar module.

 

[wfooshee]

Oh, I'm quite familiar with how it's built. In both rockets in that picture it looks like a fourth stage, though, not a fairing over them LEM. maybe the LEM design hadn't even been well worked out at the time of that concept picture.

 

[Danoff]

Oh, I'm quite familiar with how it's built. In both rockets in that picture it looks like a fourth stage, though, not a fairing over them LEM. maybe the LEM design hadn't even been well worked out at the time of that concept picture.

That's what I mean. I think that the LEM wasn't even a concept at that time, it was a direct landing with a huge rocket on the moon.

 

[wfooshee]

That's what I mean. I think that the LEM wasn't even a concept at that time, it was a direct landing with a huge rocket on the moon.

OK, like in your post 2930... mebbe so.